Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court

Baltimore Sun ^ | September 26, 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.

The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.

The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.

ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.

[mlc9852]

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State once again - communism continues to try push God out of our society and culture and no doubt they will continue to win.

[gobucks]

"While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process."

I bet this thread is going to receive many, many mindless posts!!

[PatrickHenry]

Trial starts today!

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[PatrickHenry]

This trial is scheduled to start today.

Here's a link to the official website of the court where Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al. is being tried. If you click on Docket, you get a list of all significant pleadings filed in the case -- the complaint, the answer, etc. They're PDF files, but almost everyone has the Adobe reader. So you can check that website and be fully up to date on the history of the case.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I thought it was 2005, not 1925.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a pretty good article that appeared yesterday. It sums up the current state of Intelligent Design "theory":
Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science'.

[Drammach]

It's too bad Court TV hasn't got the brains to televise this..

Or is there some PA statute that prohibits televising the trial??

[Vaquero]

There is a faction of us good folks on the right that is so incredibly blind and/or stupid as to cause the scumbags and Socialists on left, lead by the MSM, to paint everyone on the right with the same brush of the insipid.

The radical fundamentalists will kill the country's movement to the right quicker than anything.

[mlc9852]

"The radical fundamentalists will kill the country's movement to the right quicker than anything."

Who exactly are these "radical fundamentalists" you accuse?

[general_re]

No cameras in federal courts....

[Drammach]

Thanks.. that answers it..

[ml1954]

Any London bookies laying out odds on this?

[metmom]

"The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence."


UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?! The Constitution is for establishing and contolling the Federal government, not regulating education.

[PatrickHenry]

It's too bad Court TV hasn't got the brains to televise this.

They tried. The court refused. It's one of the orders you can find at the "Docket" link I provided above.

[ml1954]

"We object to the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism."

A supposedly educated person actually made this statement. Amazing.

[DesertSapper]

First, I'm a firm believer in Genesis' account of God's creation. Second, I'm not trying to start any fights on this (though these threads usually end up that way). With that out of the way, I must pose this question to FR's Darwinists:

Though not a direct reflection on the "science" of the case, does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"?

Personally, I cannot imagine too many other groups I would want on my side less.

Flame away! ...or better yet, answer my question.

[doc30]

This is one of the few instances where I'm behind the ACLU. They are trying to preserve the remnants of science education in high school. This ID nonsense is polluting the science classes and requires more 'dumbing down' of other science classes to make the statement fit. Inserting ID into school by rule of School Board is intellectual affermative action.

[Vaquero]

the students of the scribblings of the desert wandering, sandal wearing, Bronze age goat herders (or fishermen if you prefer), try to explain to empirically trained people of science how their theories are faulty.

[doc30]

Some people want to turn the clock back to before 1925.